A TC (01) Final print document

GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024
TEAM COURT: IMC24-

01
GAUTAM BUDDHAUNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024
BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF VISHWESHRA
SPECIAL APPEAL TO PETITION

[UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VISHWESHWARA]
IN THE MATTER OF
RANVEER .. APPELLANT
.
V.
DEEPIKA .. RESPONDENT
.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALANT

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS......................................................................................................................4
INDEX AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................................................5
ACTS AND STATUTES..............................................................................................................................6
BOOKS REFERRED....................................................................................................................................6
LEGAL DATABASE.....................................................................................................................................6
STATEMENTOFJURISDICTION............................................................................................................7
STATEMENTOFFACTS.........................................................................................................8
ISSUES RAISED..........................................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS......................................................................................................................10
ARUGEMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

OF VISHWESHWARA
1.1 APPELLANT HAS LOCUS STANDI
1.2 THE MATTER INVOLVES SUSTAINTIAL QUESTION OF LAW
1.3 GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE
2. I. WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE VNC IS CONSTITUIONALLY VALID OR NOT?
II. WHETHER RANVEER LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT U/S 69 OF VNC
3. ADMISIABILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AS PROOF OF INTENTION.
3.1 WHATSAPP CHATS; PRIMARY OR SECONARY EVIDENCE?
PRAYER ……………………………………………………………………………. 26
ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Expansion
AIR All India Reporter
Hon’ble Honorable
& And
UOV Union Vishweshwara
Art Article
VNC Vishweshwara Nyaya Court
SCR Supreme Court Record
SCC Supreme Court cases
SC Supreme Court
Ors Others
v. Versus
No./ Nos. Number/Numbers
p/pp. Page/pages
Trespasser Respondent Answer
HC High court
govt. Government
iii
INDEXOF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Delhi Judicial Service Association V. State of Gujarat
Arunachalam. R. Sadhanantham
Nihal Singh& ors. V. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
(Pawan Kumar vs State of Haryana 2003 and 11 SCC 241 (SC);
(C.C.E V. standard motor products AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298
Janshed hormusji Wadia V. board of trustees, port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 SC
Menka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978;
A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ,1988)
Kathi running Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC
123 Achyut Adhikari v. West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1039
(Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC169)
(R.C. Copper v. Union of India, (2018)11 SCC 1
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib
Hariprasad Rao V. State (1951) SCR 322
4
ACTS AND STATUTES:
1. The Constitution of Vishweshwara

2. Vishweshwara Nyaya Court, 2023
3. Vishweshwara Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
4. Vishweshwara Sakhshya Adhniyam,2023
BOOKS REFERRED:
Books and Articles
i. H.M. Servaii, Constitutional Law of India, (4th ed., Universal

Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2010.
ii. D.J. Pandey Constitutional Law of India
th
(56 Edition, CentralLawAgency,2019)
iii. Constitution of India by V.N Shukla
LEGALDATABASE:
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.supremecourtofindia.com
5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellant humbly submits this memorandum of the petition filed before
this honorable court under The Article 136 of The Constitution of
Vishweshwara.
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the supreme court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of Vishweshwara.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgement, determination, sentence
or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the armed forces
6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The case is set in the state Bhageshwari in Vishweshwara, a quasi-federal state

with a predominantly Hindu population.
Deepika, from Kollam district, and Ranveer, from Chittoor district, are both
Hindus and medical students at Vikramaditya Medical College in Kasaragod.
Ranveer, a year senior to Deepika, helps her adjust to college life, and they
become a couple in July 2021.
They move into a rented apartment together in February 2022, primarily due
to societal pressure.
Deepika's childhood friend, Karan, returns from the US and settles in

Kasaragod, causing tension in Deepika and Ranveer's relationship.
At a Christmas party in December 2023, Karan expresses his feelings for

Deepika, leading to a confrontation between Ranveer and Karan.
Ranveer leaves their shared apartment on 25th December 2023 after an argument
with Deepika and Karan.
Deepika files an FIR against Ranveer under the new Vishweshwara Nyaya
Court (VNC) for promise to marry and desertion.
The Sessions court convicts Ranveer based on WhatsApp messages as evidence

of the promise to marry and sentences him to 8 years of simple imprisonment
Ranveer appeals the decision to the Supreme Court of Vishweshwara, with

the final hearing scheduled for 19th April 2024.
7
ISSUES RAISED
1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before Supreme Court

of Vishweshwara
2. Whether Section 69 of VNC is constitutionally valid or not? Whether Ranveer is

liable for punishment under Section 69 of VNC?
3. Whether Electronic evidence is admissible as proof of intention?
8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before the Supreme Court

of Vishweshwara?
➢ It is humbly submitted before the honorable court

that the present SLP filed by the Appellant is maintainable
in the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution
of Vishweshwara if the Supreme Court does not intervene
it will result in gross injustice and that miscarriage of
Justice has already been occurred by the judgment of the
session ports who issued an imprisonment of Appellant for
8 years.
2. Whether this section 69 of VNC is constitutionally valid or not?
Ranveer is liable for punishment under section 69 of VNC?
➢ The Counsel for Appellant humbly challenges the
constitutionality of the section 69 of VNC on the basis of
weakness and arbitrariness and violation fundamental rights
of an individual due implication of this clause.
➢ The Counsel for Appellant s summits that Ranveer
is not liable for punishment under section 69 of the VNC as
nowhere in the facts and the findings by the session court
the ‘Mens Rea’ was proven and Karan’s testimony cannot
admit as trusted evidence for the Appellant ’s
accountability.
3. Weather electronic evidence is admissible as a proof of intention?
➢ Electronic evidences are highly circumstantial and have no

evidentiary value High Court granted bail to a man accused under
the NDPS Act, after noting that the WhatsApp messages would
"have no evidentiary value" unless they were certified under the
provisions of Section 65B of Evidence Act.
9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before the

Supreme Court of Vishweshwara?
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vishweshwara

that this special petition is maintainable in this court under article 136 of the
Constitution of Vishweshwara which reads as under -
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the supreme court may, in its
discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of Vishweshwara.
(4) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgement, determination, sentence
or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the armed forces
The jurisdiction conferred under article 136 has distinguishing features:
a. The power to grant special leave is not confined to judgements, decrees

or final orders of the high court. It can be granted even against the
decisions of the lower courts.
b. The order or determination of a court or tribunal may be in any cause
or matter, civil or criminal or otherwise.
10
“By virtue of this article the court can grant special leave in civil cases,
in criminal cases, in income tax cases, in cases which come up before
2
different kinds of tribunals, and any variety of cases”.
The only conditions are -

(i) The determination or order sought to be appealed from must
have the character of a judicial adjudication purely
administrative or executive direction is not contemplated to be
made the subject matter of appeal in the Supreme Court
(ii) The authorities whose act is complained against must be a court
or a tribunal
The Counsel for Appellant s humbly submits before the court that the appeal is
of a character of judicial adjudication and the authority complained against is the
session court.
3
In Delhi Judicial Service Association V. State of Gujarat , it was contented
by the supreme court that
“Under Article 136, there is no room for any doubt that this court has wide power to
interfere and correct the judgement and orders passed by any court or tribunal in the
country. In addition to the appellate power, the court has special residuary power to
entertain appeal against any order of any court in the country. The plenary
jurisdiction of this court to grant leave and hear appeals against any order of a court
or tribunal, confers power of judicial superintendence over all the courts and
tribunals in the territory of Vishweshwara including sub ordinate courts of
Magistrate and District Judge. This court has, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction
over all the courts in Vishweshwara.”
2 Pritam Singh v State, 1950 SCR 453; 1950 SCC 189
3 1991 AIR 2176, 1991, SCR (936)
11
4
In another case of Arunachalam vs P.S.R. Sadhanantham , it was again
contended by the SC that: -
“Article 136 of the Constitution of Vishweshwara vests the Supreme Court

with a plenitude of penal and appellate power over all the courts and
tribunals in India the power is penally in the sense that there are no words in
article 136 itself qualifying that power. But the penally nature of power has
led the court to set limits to itself within which to exercise such power it is
now well -established practice of this court to permit the invocation of power
under article 136 only in exceptional circumstances as and when a question
of law of general public importance arises or a decision which the conscience
of the court”
➢ It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the present

appeal filed by the Appellant is maintainable in the supreme court under
article 136 of the constitution of Vishweshwara
➢ If the supreme court does not intervene, it will result in gross
injustice and that miscarriage of justice has already been occurred, by
the judgment of sessions court who issued non-bailable warrant against
Ranveer with complete disregard of fundamental rights for his personal
liberty and his right to natural justice.
➢special Article 136of the constitution of Vishweshwara elucidates the
leave to appeal by the Supreme court.
This, SLP is maintainable as, Firstly, the appellant has ‘LOCUS

STANDI’ to approach the Hon’ble Supreme court. Secondly, the matter
involves substantial question of law of general public importance.
Thirdly, grave injustice has been done.
1.1 The Appellant has LOCUS STANDI to approach the
Honorable Supreme Court
➢ It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court
that the appellant has LOCUS STANDI to approach the
Supreme Court in the presence case article 136 of the
Constitution is
4 1979 AIR 1284
12
couched in the widest phraseology. (Nihal Singh& ors. V.

5
State of Punjab)
➢ This court jurisdiction is limited only by its

discretion it is pertinent to note that the scope of article
134 providing appeals to the Supreme Court in criminal
matters is limited whereas article 136 is very broad based
and confers discretion on the court to hear in any cause or
matter. therefore, criminal appeals may be brought to the
Supreme Court under article 136 when these are not
covered by article 134
1.2 The matter involves question of law of general public importance
➢ The jurisdiction confirmed under article 136 on the

Supreme Court is corrected one and not a restrictive one and
one can we invoke when a question of law of general public
importance arises by filing a special leave petition
➢ A duty is enjoyed upon the Supreme Court to exercise a

power by setting right to illegality in the judgments, it is well
settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and
failure by the Supreme Court to interfere with the same would
amount to illegality to be perpetuated (Pawan Kumar vs State
of
Haryana 2003 and 11 SCC 241 (SC); See also HM Servaii
th
constitutional Law of India 4 edition volume 12010)
➢justice
Article 136 is the residuary power of the Supreme Court to do
where the court is satisfied that there is injustice (C.C.E
V. standard motor products AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298; see also
th
HM Servaii constitutional law of India 4 edition volume
II2010) The principle is that that this court would never do
injustice nor allow injustice being perpetrated for the sake of
upholding technicalities (Janshed hormusji Wadia V. board of
trustees, port of Mumbai, (2004)3 SCC 214 SC)
➢ In the instant matter the right to life and liberty (Art. 21),
right to fair trial (Art. 21; Menka Gandhi V. Union of India,
1978;
5 AIR 1965 SC 26
13
See also, A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ,1988) and reasonable

opportunity (Art.14) is violated by the observation of the
session court which is the matter of general public importance
and therefore calls for intervention by the Supreme Court.
1.3 The matter involves substantial question of law and

gross injustice has been done
• It is humbly submitted by the Appellant before this Honorable court that
the matter involves substantial question of law as it concerns the
violation of fundamental right of, right of liberty, right of dignity, right
of fair trial and right of reasonable opportunity
1.3.1 Substantial question of law is involved

➢ In the present matter the question is
whether the chats admitted as evidence can
indicate a clear promise to marry or whether
they simply are expression of love and future
plans without a definitive commitment to
marriage.
➢ Furthermore, can Ranveer be held reliable
for punishment under section 69 of the
Vishweshwara Nyaya Court which provides
the offense of deceitful conduct contrary to
promise of marriage
➢ Additionally, whether the evidence presented

by Deepika and Karan is sufficient to establish
that Ranveer made a deceitful conduct on
contrary to the promise to marry or whether there
are circumstances that mitigate his liability.
In the instant case the session court has erred in deciding a very substantial
question of law related to the right of life and liberty and reasonable opportunity
of the plaintiff
It is therefore submitted that the present case involves a matter of general

public importance as it directly affects the right of a party that has an
erroneous and prejudicial effect to the interests of people
14
1.3.2 Gross injustice has been done
➢ The observation held by the judgment of the session court

is bad in the eyes of law as it did not recognize the right of
liberty, right of choice, right of reasonable opportunity and right
of fair trial of Ranveer which is an intrinsic part of the right to
life and right of equality as a fundamental right rather than as a
common law right. Grave miscarriage of Justice has occurred
because of its serious and flagrant violation of law has been
committed by the observation of the session courts for which the
interference of Supreme Court is required
➢ Does every breach of promise of marriage comes under the

ambit of deceitful means under section 69 of the VNS and very
such breach is necessarily an offence to be amounted as cognizable
offence and non bailable offence. Such decision of the session
court implies grave injustice that has been on the part of sessions
court without actually into account the psychological impact,
social impact on Ranveer’s life. This judgment of sessions court is
Great violation of right of dignity, right of liberty and right of
choice. Therefore, grave injustice has been done by the session
court by acquitting Ranveer for imprisonment for eight years.
a. Every breach of promise to marry is not a crime -
Courts have drawn distinction between rape and consensual sex
In Yelda Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2006) 11 SCC 615], apex court held
that the voluntary Consent depends on the fabs of each case and factors such as age
of the girl, her education, her social status and likewise the social status for the boy.
In another such case Consensual sexual relationship which is continued between

the parties for quite long time could not be said to have continued under the
misconception of the fact that Under the set law as rape; Dilip Kumar V. State of
Bihar [(2005) 1 SCC88].
15
1.3.3 Finding of facts may give rise to substantial question of law
➢ The Supreme Court is not precluded from going into question of

facts under article 136 if it considers it necessary to do so (Kathi running
Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123, See also, Achyut
Adhikari v. West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1039) Article 136 uses the words
in any course or matter this gives widest part to this quote to deal with
any quasar or matter (Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC169)
➢ In the instant case the observation of the sessions court reached to

the conclusion that Ranveer’s act as deceitful means for promise to marry
is valid. And such an observation leads to overlooking Fundamental
rights of Ranveer as to life of dignity, right of Liberty, right of right fair
trial right of reasonable opportunities. The judgment of the session court
is hence violative of the basic structure provided by the Constitution to
safeguard its citizens.
Thus, from the above grounds it is humbly submitted that the petition on behalf of
Ranveer is maintainable before this Honorable Supreme Court of Vishweshwara
Hence the Counsel for Appellant humbly summits that the special petition filed by
the Appellant is maintainable and the Counsel requests the court to accept the
SLP of the Appellant.
2. I. Whether section 69 of the PNC is constitutionally valid or not?
II. Whether Ranveer is liable for punishment under session 69 of VNC?
I. Whether he section 69 of the VNC is constitutionally valid or not?
2.1 Vagueness and Arbitrariness of Section 69 of the

Vishweshwara Nyaya Court
➢ The section 69 of Vishweshwara Nyaya Court i.e. sexual

intercourse by employing the deceitful means etc. Is arguably
vague in abroad as it does not provide a clear guidance as to
what constitutes disciple conduct contrary to the promise to
marry this lack of clarity reached to arbitrary and
discriminatory enforcement of this section as seen in the
judgment of the session court
16
➢ The importance of the ‘object ‘of law cannot be made a

ground to trample the right of life and liberty guaranteed to
Appellant it is not the ‘object’ of the state action or ‘form’
thereof which is material, it is the direct effect upon the right of
an individual which shall be the determining factor for judging
the constitutional validity of the action (R.C. Copper v. Union
of India, (2018)11 SCC 1). The Supreme Court has clarified
that even if the object of the legislation is ‘good’ the means to
achieve that object cannot be violated of the fundamental
rights.
➢ And this legislative law criminalizes certain expression of

intent regarding future relationships this Should be seen as
unconstitutional limitation on the personal autonomy of
Ranveer and his personal liberty. When something is done by
the Legislature which is excessive and disproportionate such
legislation would be manifestly arbitrary (Ajay Hasia v.
6
Khalid Mujib) Therefore it should be taken into note that
section 69 of the VNC is biased and overlooks the right of
equality of certain section of the society
➢ No court would be justified in ignoring the personal liberty of

the accused in preference to the object of law and clearly in the
instant matter the session quote has overlooked the right of
personal liberty and integrity of Ranveer in its observation by
sentencing him for a representative of imprisonment of 8 years.
Under the ambit of deceitful means of section 69 of the VNC.
2.2 Violative of equal rights and opportunities
➢ Ranveer and Deepika had a consensual sexual

relationship, which they continued after their cohabitation in a
rented apartment and were both planning a future together.
However, after a verbal altercation, Ranveer left and
ultimately ended their relationship. Which led him to be
accused of deceitful conduct contrary to promise to marry.
6
(1981) 1 SCC 722
17
➢ But during the period of their relationship it was nowhere

seen, found or observed that Deepika was induced for false
promise of employment or promotion, or marrying by
suppressing identity. (see; explanation ‘deceitful means’ u/s 69)
but rather during the time for their relationship Ranveer was
completely honest with his intentions to actually marry Deepika
out love.
➢ Moreover, Deepika’s silence during Karan’s allegations on
Ranveer and her subsequent decision about conveying their
breakup to her friends and then subsequently moving in with
Karan indicates that she is complicit in the situation, yet she’s
not held accountable for her such act by the sessions court
Therefore, the unfair and discriminatory application of
Section 69 of VNC against Ranveer is a clear violation of his
right to equal protection under the exercise of his fundamental
right under Art.14 of the constitution.
2.2.1 Disproportionate punishment
➢ The punishment described by section 69 of the
VNC up to ten years of punishment must be deemed
disproportionate to the harm caused, particularly in
cases where the parties involved had a consensual
sexual relationship.
➢ It is important to note that unreal received an 8-year

sentence for disciple conduct contrary to a promise to
marry which is a serious punishment disproportionate
to the circumstances of the offense the punishment
imposed on Ranveer has significant impact in his
career and future prospects particularly as a medical
student. his conviction for a criminal offense will
negatively affect his ability to obtain a medical license,
secure future, employment and maintain relationships.
Additionally, the stigma associated with a criminal
conviction may affect his personal life, mental health
and reputation. Therefore, it is important to consider
whether such a harsh punishment is warranted in this
case particularly as the relationship between Deepika
18
and Ranveer was consensual and there is no evidence of

physical or emotional harm inflicted on the Deepika.
The Counsel for plaintiff humbly presents before the court that this penalty is
excessively severe and does not serve the legitimate objective of law henceforth
violating the plaintiffs right of equal opportunity guaranteed under article 14
2.2.2 Gender biased law

➢ It should also be taken in note by this Hon’ble Court
That this section 69 of the VNC is gender biased as it
is more likely to be used to penalize men for perceived
violations of promise to marry and such an
interpretation constitutes to violation of principle of
equality under the law
➢ For the successful staging of this legal spectacle, it
then becomes necessary to project the woman as
devoid of all sexual agency and construct her as an
“innocent” and “gullible” female who would not
consent to “illicit sex”.
➢ it does not require knowledge on part of the man

that the consent has been given under a
misconception of fact. the criminalization also opens
up the door to a litany of possible harms and abuses
that could arise even before such cases reach the trial
stage
II. Whether Ranveer is liable for punishment under second 69 of

the VNC?
2.A. Presence of Mens rea
In criminal law the concept of men’s rear refers to the necessary mental element
of Crime which includes the person’s knowledge intent and recklessness with
regard to the illegal Conduct in question. This implies that a person cannot be
19
criminally held liable for a conduct that was not accompanied by necessary
mental state in other words it must be proven that the person acted intentionally,
knowingly or recklessly in committing the crime depending on the elements of the
offence.
➢ In the instant matter present before The Hon’ble

Court the issue of ‘mens rea’ Arises in the application
of sections 69 of the VNC which criminal disciple
conduct contrary to a promise to marry.
➢ The Counsel of Appellant potentially argues that
repetition did not possess the necessary mens rea for the
crime of which he is accused, as he made promise to
marry Deepika with the genuine intention out of love
of.
➢ And it was nowhere proven in the given facts of
the case that the mental state of the Appellant at the
time of the alleged promises was with an intent to
deceive.
➢ The Counsel for Appellant Humbly Submits before

the honorable court that the observation held by the
sessions court was discriminatory on the grounds that
despite of not having any deceitful intention or presence
of mens rea by said Appellant he was held liable under
69 of the VNC for imprisonment of 8 years.
➢ It is well decided that unless statute either clearly

or by a necessary implication rules out men’s rea as a
constituent element of a crime a person should not be
found guilty of an offense unless he had a guilty mind
at the time of commercial of the offense (Hariprasad
Rao V. State (1951) SCR 322)
Therefore, the Counsel for Appellant humbly argues in the honorable court that
the Appellant Ranveer shall not be held liable under the circumstances that the
Appellant did not have an intention to deceive all means here at the time of
making promise to marry Deepika.
2B. Admissibility of Karan’s witness testimony in holding Ranveer liable
20
➢ The admissibility of Karan testimony as a witness should

depend on various factors such as his credibility and biasness that he
may have and whether his testimony can be corroborated with other
evidence.
The potential issue which comes with the testimony of Karan is that his
relationship with Deepika as he is a childhood friend and may have a bias in
her favours and he can be counted as an interested witness.
• The Supreme Court of India has observed that to consider a witness as

an interest witness the court must establish that the set witness has
some kind of vested interest against the accused or other convex or
must have interest in the result of the case further it is a well-
established principle that according to the English law dictionary a
witness who has a witness vested in personal interest in the outcome
or result of the ongoing case is an interested witness in the case the
Supreme Court has held that when a witness is biased and aims at
falsely implicating the accused on the ongoing case is an interested
witness.
The motive at falsely implicating the accused on the ongoing case isn’t
interested witness the more to submit the bias against either of the parties
automatically need to develop a vested and personal interest in the final
result of the case
➢ But the session court in this case has already relied on Karan testimony
against the Appellant Ranveer. And has clearly overlooked the fact that
Karan had an ulterior intention to marry Deepika Which can be easily
th
observed in a statement which was made by him on 24 of December
2023 i.e. “It’s good that Ranveer conveyed his intention to marry you
7
otherwise I was planning on proposing you for marriage”.
From the above statement it could be clearly interpreted that Karan had
and motive to marry Deepika. In another instance during the verbal spat
between Ranveer and Karan, Karan voiced “So what if she wants to stay
8
with me rather than you, who are you to her?”.
7 Memorial Para 5
8
Memorial Para 6
21
From the afforested statements it could be clearly observed that Karan

has a vested interest in Deepika. Decided from the cases cited in the
Supreme Court it is clear that in case admissibility of intended witnesses
it is the duty of the courts to ensure that there is no injustice made while
considering the evidence by the interested witness
But in the observation which was upheld in the session court it is certainly
clear that session court completely relied on the witness testimony which
violative to principle of justice and the session court also failed to test of
malice present in testimony of Karan “In Ramashish Rai Vs. Jagdish
9
Singh the court the made following observation the requirement of law is
that the testimony of inimical witnesses has to be considered with caution.
In another case the court subsequently held that The settle position in law
in regard to the evidence of interested witness is that the court should
scrutinize the same with extra care and question as it would not be
prudent to place Reliance on insert evidence to basic induction and further
that in case such evidence is found reliable on Swachh protonated the
court may act on it without looking for Cooperative evidence one of the
main principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal trial is that the
evidence of witness who is not shown to be interested should be
scrutinized carefully and if it is found that it is not artificial not an all-
natural not improbable and does not suffer from intrinsic intimated is then
it can be relied upon if it suffers from any of these undesirable factors
evidence do given by an independent and in this interested witness ought
not to be relied upon in the instant case two witnesses were interested and
there was serious in formatting in their evidence there for Reliance could
not be placed on their evidence.”( Mutte Padharppa Ghigadolli vs. State
of Karnataka)
In conclusion to the arguments presented above it can be noted that the

session court Has failed to test the authenticity of the testimony of Karan as
a witness and has simply relied on his testimony leading to imprisonment of
Ranveer for a period of eight years for committing an offense under section
69 of the VNC
9 [(2005) 10 SCC 498]
22
Therefore, the Counsel for Appellant humbly submits before the

honorable court to overrule the decision observed by the session quote
for holding Ranveer Liable under the offense of section 69 of VNC.
3. Admissibility of Evidence and proof of intention
➢ According to Vishweshwara Evidence Act,1872 Admissibility of

evidence deals, With the advent of internet revolution, the Indian legal
system incorporated technology into its proceedings through the
Amendment Act of 2000 to the Vishweshwara Evidence Act, 1872. The
amendment was introduced to add Section 65A & 65B to the act, keeping
the concerns regarding the authenticity of electronic records intact and to
ensure their adaptability in courtrooms. The admissibility of electronic
evidence in Indian courts, since then have been a topic of extensive
discussion, one of the reasons for which is the prevailing ambiguity in
provisions incorporated thereunder.
➢ The classification of electronic evidence as a secondary category

of acceptable evidence in court has sparked several important questions
surrounding its admissibility. One significant query is whether Section
65B is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic evidence, and at what
stage the production of the certificate should ideally take place. Moreover,
the validity of the evidence and the applicability of different methods in
civil and criminal cases have remained uncertain.
➢ In 2005, the court ruled that printouts of phone records could be

considered admissible evidence even without a certificate under Section
65B (4). However, this judgment was later overruled in the case of Anvar
10
P. v. P. K. Basheer .In the latter case, the Hon'ble Court held that Section
65B is a complete court, and evidence from any other source would not be
10 2014 10 SCC 473
23
permissible. It emphasized that the Vishweshwara Evidence Act does not

allow proof of an electronic record through oral evidence and stated that a
certificate under Section 65B (4) is mandatory.
➢ In 2017, the court reevaluated the requirement of a certificate and

concluded that certificates under Section 65B (4) are only a "mode of
proof." Therefore, the non-production of a certificate on an earlier
occasion could be considered a curable defect. This viewpoint was further
supported by another judgment in 2018, which stated that the requirement
of a certificate is procedural and not mandatory. It can be relaxed in
certain circumstances, such as when a party does not have control over the
original device. Consequently, Section 65B is not considered a complete
court.
Upon analysing these judgments and the associated contradictions, it becomes

evident that there is a gap in the interpretation of the law.
3.1 WhatsApp Chats: Primary or Secondary Evidence?
11
In Girwar Singh v. CBI , electronic evidence was introduced before the Court,
for which a committee was appointed to check the authenticity of the electronic
evidence. Later, the committee found that the evidence wasn't the original one or
the copy of the original. The evidence was copied numerous times in different
devices. Consequently, the Delhi H.C. held the electronic evidence was
unacceptable.
Here, it should be noticed that the presentation of evidence which has been copied
from an original document is known as Secondary Evidence. Section 63 of the
Vishweshwara Evidence Act, 1872 states different instances when Evidence is
11 CRL.A 263 & 279 /2009
24
viewed as Secondary Evidence. Then again, Section 62 characterizes Primary

Evidence as a document introduced in its original form for the inspection in the
Court. Sometimes digital evidence can be used towards establishing mens rea as
well. The social media posts of a person, as well as internet search histories can
provide indications as to what a person was thinking or looking in to before
committing a crime. However these evidences are highly circumstantial and have
no evidentiary value according to the 2021 judgement January 2021, the Punjab
and Haryana High Court granted bail to a man accused under the NDPS Act, after
noting that the WhatsApp messages would "have no evidentiary value" unless
they were certified under the provisions of Section 65B of the Evidence Act
Hence proof of intention cannot be established via electronic evidences solely
25
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, argument advanced an
authority cited the petition of most humbly praise before the honorable
Supreme Court of Vishweshwara to –
1. Quash the FIR and discharge Appellant from alleged case.
2. Declaration from the Supreme Court that section 69 of VNC

is unconstitutional and violates his fundamental rights
3. Acquit Appellant on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove
his guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Grant protection of his reputation and privacy and provide damages for
the harm cause to him by the criminal proceedings
To pass any other order, direction or relief as this Hon’ble court deems fit, in
the interest of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience
(Respectfully Submitted)
- Counsels on Behalf of the Appellant
26

A TC (01) Final print document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A TC (01) Final print document

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A TC (01) Final print document

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024

TEAM COURT: IMC24-

GAUTAM BUDDHAUNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT, 2024

BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF VISHWESHRA

SPECIAL APPEAL TO PETITION

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPEALANT

ACTS AND STATUTES..............................................................................................................................6

1. WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

1.1 APPELLANT HAS LOCUS STANDI

1.2 THE MATTER INVOLVES SUSTAINTIAL QUESTION OF LAW

1.3 GRAVE INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE

2. I. WHETHER SECTION 69 OF THE VNC IS CONSTITUIONALLY VALID OR NOT?

II. WHETHER RANVEER LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT U/S 69 OF VNC

3. ADMISIABILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AS PROOF OF INTENTION.

3.1 WHATSAPP CHATS; PRIMARY OR SECONARY EVIDENCE?

UOV Union Vishweshwara

VNC Vishweshwara Nyaya Court

SCR Supreme Court Record

SCC Supreme Court cases

No./ Nos. Number/Numbers

Trespasser Respondent Answer

Delhi Judicial Service Association V. State of Gujarat

Nihal Singh& ors. V. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

(Pawan Kumar vs State of Haryana 2003 and 11 SCC 241 (SC);

(C.C.E V. standard motor products AIR 1989 1298 SC 1298

Menka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978;

A.R Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ,1988)

Kathi running Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC

123 Achyut Adhikari v. West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1039

(Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC169)

(R.C. Copper v. Union of India, (2018)11 SCC 1

Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib

Hariprasad Rao V. State (1951) SCR 322

ACTS AND STATUTES:

1. The Constitution of Vishweshwara

Books and Articles

i. H.M. Servaii, Constitutional Law of India, (4th ed., Universal

iii. Constitution of India by V.N Shukla

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

The case is set in the state Bhageshwari in Vishweshwara, a quasi-federal state

Deepika's childhood friend, Karan, returns from the US and settles in

At a Christmas party in December 2023, Karan expresses his feelings for

The Sessions court convicts Ranveer based on WhatsApp messages as evidence

Ranveer appeals the decision to the Supreme Court of Vishweshwara, with

1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before Supreme Court

2. Whether Section 69 of VNC is constitutionally valid or not? Whether Ranveer is

3. Whether Electronic evidence is admissible as proof of intention?

1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before the Supreme Court

➢ It is humbly submitted before the honorable court

➢ Electronic evidences are highly circumstantial and have no

1. Whether the present appeal is maintainable before the

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vishweshwara

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

The jurisdiction conferred under article 136 has distinguishing features:

a. The power to grant special leave is not confined to judgements, decrees

The only conditions are -

2 Pritam Singh v State, 1950 SCR 453; 1950 SCC 189

3 1991 AIR 2176, 1991, SCR (936)

“Article 136 of the Constitution of Vishweshwara vests the Supreme Court